The Conservative Party's 'Contract for Equalities' document, published 4 days (3 May 2010) before the last general election, makes clear the "Conservative Party's commitment to sexuality equality and gay rights", tackling homophobic bullying, implementing measures to tackle incitement to gay hatred and to "changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage".

Who said or where is it written: "It is not right that a couple (same sex) who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry." Where is their moral authority to make such assertion? Why not legitimise paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc, with the same 'moral' authority?

It is blatantly obvious that the real policy aim of this government's determination to legislate Same Sex Marriage (SSM) is to force the normalising and acceptance of homosexual behaviour and relationships in UK culture and society. A key area to engineer the social change is in primary and secondary schools, so that any comments or actions by staff, parents or students, which can be construed as criticism of homosexuality (aka homophobia) can be stamped on with punishment and exclusion of students and re-education of parents with non-compliance resulting in the forced removal of children from parents by social workers.

Like in China, North Korea and the former USSR, there will be prisoners of conscience in the UK. True Christians, who refuse to accept that homosexual behaviour is normal, will be charged under homophobic hate legislation, fined, property confiscated, businesses and websites shut down and incarcerated in re-education centres. The new moral authority of the state, based on the current whims of the government, will encourage citizens to 'out' anyone who rejects homosexuality as normal. The trajectory of current policy is so obvious that unless it is stopped dead in its track will result in fascist behaviour not seen since the Nazis.

The whole idea of developing legislation to support unnatural, dangerous to health, immoral by God's law, sterile, sociopathic homosexual behaviour is at best stupidity, otherwise it is anarchistic. Even the Department of Health states: "It is important to stress that people's sexual behaviour cannot be deduced from their sexual orientation. For example, a bisexual woman might only have sex with women, or a lesbian may have sex with men"(2010, p.20). In simple language the whole idea of homosexual behaviour being an identity (aka sexual orientation) is complete bunkum - homosexuality is a sexual behaviour. So why does the government want to support the legislation to promote homosexuality and SSM, unless their agenda is to crush and suppress religious freedoms and reject the Law of God?

Below is a letter written by one of our readers to Conor Burns MP, that expands on the above points and can be used as a template for writing your own letter of opposition to the government's SSM implementation proposals:

Your Ref: BWC2996

7 April 2012

Conor Burns MPHouse of CommonsLondon SW1 0AA

Dear Mr Burns

Same-Sex Marriage "Consultation" – Redefinition of Marriage

I am in receipt of your letter of 28 March and that of 15 March from Theresa May and wish to highlight a few points.

Impartiality – the State or God

There is no impartiality in this "consultation". It is, in fact, compulsion because the government has already stated it wants to change the law. Theresa May, Lynne Featherstone (see link with Equalities Minister at Stonewall Equality dinner- £400,000 raised to fight homophobic bullying), David Cameron and you are all pro-gay. So, how does the Campaign 4 Marriage Petition of one man and one woman with over 400,000 signatures, so far, impact on this "consultation" process? SSM is the creation of a godless state, whereas male-female marriage is an organic institution specifically ordained by God.

Theresa May says that her support of SSM is motivated by the "desire to strengthen our society". However, Christian ethics are clear; society is strengthened by the ideal of sexual activity being limited to marriage which has always been defined as male-female - a fence erected in all civilizations around the world.

Research says otherwise!

Research indicates very high levels of violence in homosexual and lesbian relationships:

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Island and Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."

Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior. The evidence indicates that homosexual and lesbian relationships are at far greater risk for contracting life-threatening disease compared with married couples (The Health Risks of Gay Sex, John R Diggs JR MD)

Commitment & Fidelity

Theresa May believes "commitment, fidelity and marriage are good things". However, she then adds "which [marriage] should not be restricted". Tell me, how can marriage be strengthened by promiscuous, unhealthy same-sex lifestyles with further proposals to accommodate transgenderism into the "Equality" mix? The gay lifestyle is not based on commitment (1) or fidelity (2).

(1) Commitment: Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter.

(2) Fidelity – (Revealing figures)

Will Churches be forced to provide SSM under anti-discrimination law?

Your reassurance and the Coalition's promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings, is worthless. The ECHR has said that, if introduced, churches will be forced to provide marriages to SS couples under anti-discrimination law. The Judges also stated that SSM is not a human right, undermining the claim by Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone that it is a 'rights' issue.

Lawyer Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, said:

"Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage.

"This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises."

CofE lawyers have previously warned that vicars may end up being sued under equality law should they refuse to marry homosexuals on their premises, as any safeguards against this are unlikely to be sufficient.

And Conservative MP Peter Bone has warned that if same-sex marriage is introduced then parents and teachers who objected to promoting the new arrangements in schools could be penalised, and teachers forced to resign. (See Stonewall's Teacher's Report p13-14 on the way homosexual relationships must be presented in schools to prevent 'homophoic' bullying i.e. criticism of homosexual relationships and behaviour by staff, parents and students)

The State's ideological anti-Christian takeover

Mr Burns, I am firmly of the opinion that SSM amounts to an aggressive and unwelcome takeover of civil society by the State on ideological grounds. We did not vote MPs into office for them to impose their private ideological beliefs on the majority of the population. You quoted the 2010 Conservative manifesto and a document called a "Contract for Equalities" as a "commitment to consider civil partnerships to be called marriage". In no way does this obscure document, sneaked in just 4 days before the election, give legitimacy to the radical redefinition of marriage.

You will recall that prior to your election, when canvassing for votes; my daughter asked you why you had concealed your sexual orientation. You replied that you did not see what difference it would make. She said that it made all the difference in the world. Mr Burns: I would ask you, are you able to be impartial?

From the ever growing number of cases of discrimination and intolerance against Christians who hold traditional values, it is patently clear that the LGBT agenda has a two-pronged attack: to normalise their lifestyles, behaviour (Gay Pride Parades) and SSM and to have those who disagree with them ostracised, stigmatised, dragged through the courts and fined under SORs and Human Rights legislation. Latest examples, in our hostile "pc" environment, include the Archbishop of York receiving abusive and threatening racist emails after speaking out against SSM. David Burrowes MP received a death threat and hate mail after speaking out in support of traditional marriage.

This is not a question of sexual freedom, but of religious freedom, because if marriage is redefined as genderless, there will be legal consequences for anyone who disagrees.

I would appreciate an honest appraisal of the points raised in my letter and ask you to seriously reconsider your position. Is your allegiance to – the State or God?